Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j417tp2 wrote

Reply to comment by pk10534 in What does eviction prevention accomplish. by LongjumpingShot

If you don't live in the house then you shouldn't own the house or be taxed heavily. Family home landlords do not provide a service worth keeping in my opinion. Apartments are clearly different as they are high occupancy housing. Clearly there could be more regulation around them but OP isn't that or he wouldn't be asking reddit.

1

81632371 t1_j41bgqx wrote

I'm currently renting a home. I used to own my own home before I moved here. I could 100% buy if I wanted to. I don't want to. I'm not committed to living where I am for the next 5+ years. I'm very happy to have the ability to rent a home and not be forced into a small, overpriced apartment. I used to own a rental property myself and my tenants were also not looking to own and were very happy to rent my property (as they told me many times). Not everyone who rents wants to own.

10

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j41e704 wrote

Not anti renting just anti landlord. Like I said my position is that housing should not be a profit seeking endeavor.

−2

81632371 t1_j4244hq wrote

So who am I renting from if there's no landlord? Is the government supposed to own all of the housing stock?

8

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j425ezd wrote

Community owned, non profits and PPPs. Here's a good read for housing done probably as about as good as you can get it. 78% of Vienna's housing is rentals but only 7.4% of all housing stock is for profit without any rent controls. https://housing4.us/how-vienna-ensures-affordable-housing-for-all-with-an-extremely-complicated-housing-system/

1

YesIDoBlowCops t1_j45t4wm wrote

You reach halfway across the world and cherry pick an example while ignoring the disasterous public housing examples in our own city.

3

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j4609y6 wrote

Lol yeah let's never look at things that work extremely successfully to emulate. What a stupid take.

1

CallMeHelicase t1_j41nudf wrote

Let me give you a situation here:

Brenda and Lisa buy their first house. It is tiny and they really have to scrimp and save to afford it, but it is theirs and they love it. Within the first few years of owning the house, Brenda loses her job in her niche field due to a recession. After months of unemployment she finally finds a job, but it is several hours away from their home. They end up moving away for Brenda's job.

At this point if they were to sell the house they would lose $20,000 due to the current market and real estate agent fees. They are not in a position to take on a loss like this -- especially with the debt they accumulated when Brenda was unemployed.

You are telling me that Brenda and Lisa should be forced to take on a $20,000 loss or be taxed heavily? That they shouldn't rent out their house to cover their mortgage while they try to recoup their losses? That they are bad people for being landlords?

I have never owned property but would one day like to own my own home. For now, my husband and I rent a wonderful rowhome at an amazing price with a back yard for our dog. For the same price we could rent a 1 to 2 bedroom apartment with no outdoor area. We would not be living in Baltimore if we could not rent a single family home.

5

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j41rqio wrote

What you're describing is exactly what I'm saying is stupid - wealth accumulation and profit seeking being tied to a life necessity, housing. No one should have to scrimp and save to put a roof over their head and then immediately be incredibly fucked when they experience hardship.

2

pk10534 t1_j4181fq wrote

So if I have a 2 bedroom apartment and my roommate leaves, what happens to other room?

3

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j418in1 wrote

Youre not a landlord?

2

pk10534 t1_j418npq wrote

Jesus Christ ok it’s a condo, and my roommate leaves. Would I be obliged to just give somebody the room for free?

8

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j41aa06 wrote

It wouldn't be your roommate, it would be your tenant. I think there is work that needs to be done with live in tenants. If you look at NYC it's a bit absurd that a 200ft basement can cost thousands for a hazardous shit box. But ultimately I don't have an issue increasing the occupancy of a single family home when the owner is living there. I'm not anti-renting. I still don't think you should be making a profit off housing someone because as I said I think it's a human right. If you have the chance look up the system Austria has for their public housing.

2

pk10534 t1_j41ajsz wrote

Ok but I asked if they just paid their share of the mortgage or whatever and you said you weren’t comfortable with that either, so I’m confused what we’re supposed to do.

4

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j41b4ib wrote

What is their fair share of the mortgage. 50/50 isn't their share cause ultimately you are the capital owner in that situation and are benefiting from their occupancy.

2

pk10534 t1_j41bpm0 wrote

So I’m asking you what should I do in that situation then? Cover their living expenses for them solely because they aren’t building equity?

5

Typical-Radish4317 t1_j41crir wrote

I've been pretty clear with my position. I don't think landlords should engage in profit seeking. Obviously people are going to rent out rooms to their family or friends and you cant really stop that. But if you're buying a 2 bedroom apartment to charge some guy out the ass just so you can afford a 2 bedroom that you don't need or to use that person to build your own personal wealth then yeah sure I got a problem.

4